Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. If an agreement regarding the crop insurance legislation can be made, it is expected that the Senate will begin its consideration as early as tomorrow afternoon. If no agreement can be made, the Senate may turn to any Legislative or Executive Calendar items available for action.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:45 a.m. on Wednesday, March 22. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate immediately begin the final debate on H.R. 5, the Social Security earnings legislation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. on impact of interactive violence on children.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of the Honorable Rudy de Leon to be Deputy Secretary of Defense and Mr. Douglas A. Dworkin to be general counsel of the Department of Defense.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on E-Drugs, Who Regulates Internet Pharmacies? during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the body on the Social Security Earnings Test Elimination Act. This is a good time. We are finally going to do something good for America's senior citizens. Americans should be free to work if they choose. With passage of this bill, we will help elderly Americans stay in the workforce longer. It should be their choice, not the Government's coercion, that determines whether they stay in that workforce a longer period of time. They have spent a lifetime paying into the Social Security trust fund. It is simply not fair to deprive them of their Social Security benefits simply because they choose to stay in the workforce longer or choose to begin working again after retirement. That is common sense to me, and that is why this bill has so much appeal. Particularly at a time when the cost of living is increasing, it is important to allow our seniors who choose to work or those who are forced to work because of rising prices to do so without being penalized. I will talk about a particular individual in Kansas whom I had the privilege of meeting a month ago. His name is Ron Frampton, from Kingman, KS. He has farmed with his family most of his life. I met him when I was touring the Mize Manufacturing Company, a small manufacturer in Kingman, KS. Mr. Frampton came up to me as I was walking through the production line and asked me if we were going to eliminate the Social Security earnings test. I said I thought we were going to get the bill through. He said: Good; I need it. Then he related to me his situation. He had worked on a family farm, was born on the farm and worked there all his life. Then in the 1980s, when we had a hard financial downturn for agriculture, he got caught in that downturn. His savings for his entire family were wrapped up in this farm. That is where he plowed all of his income, all of his savings, back into the farm. When the economy moved against him in the 1980s, he lost the farm and, thus, a big part of his life, a big part of his family, a big part of his sense of being. He also lost his retirement security that he had outside of Social Security. His retirement savings were that farm. Now he has to work. He doesn't have the savings on which he had counted. He has to be able to work, and he needs the Social Security income as well. This bill helps Ron Frampton and his family in Kingman, KS. It addresses that need. It says if he needs to work, he wants to work, let him work, and don't penalize him for doing it. This bill allows people older than 65 and younger than 70 to earn income without losing their Social Security benefits. That is as it should be. It is an important bipartisan measure that passed overwhelmingly in the House and, I expect, will pass overwhelmingly in the Senate. It sends an important and positive signal to America's retired workers who have spent their lives working to make this country better. We need this for America's seniors. I am delighted we are going to pass this bill for all the seniors in the country but particularly for Mr. Frampton and for his family.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, what I want to spend some time on this morning is a very important matter that is coming up before the Senate shortly--a taxation issue the House has already passed. It is a tax a number of us have been working to get rid of for years. We are within sight of getting that done now, but we do have to get it done. People in this body could still block it from happening. I want to make sure we get it through, and that is the elimination of the marriage penalty tax. I have spoken about it on the floor a lot of times, perhaps too many. But we are so close to finally getting this done for the 21 million American couples who pay this tax that we really just have to see it through. What I am most fearful of is, once we get the bill out of the Finance Committee--they are working on it now, to eliminate this marriage penalty tax--it will come through the Finance Committee, it will be a good bill, it will do much to eliminate the marriage penalty tax--not all of it but much of it--but we will get it up on the floor and someone will say, ``No, I don't want to get it through,'' or, ``Yes, I agree with you, but it has to have this rider dealing with pharmaceuticals for Medicare patients,'' or dealing with minimum wage or dealing with some other issue that is extraneous to this important signal we send to America. I want us to get this bill through this Congress. It has cleared the House. The House has done its job. It is now in the Finance Committee in the Senate. We will soon have it here on the floor. Let's take it up, let's pass it, let's give it to the President, and do it before April 15 so the President can have that, so we can give some notion of relief to working couples across this country. Senator Ashcroft and I and Senator Hutchison of Texas have been working on this issue for some time. This past week, while we were not in session, Senator Ashcroft and I held a press conference in Kansas City. We had four couples from Kansas who are currently paying the marriage penalty tax. They think it is ridiculous. They think it is a bad signal we send. One gentleman there, one husband, stated he and his wife did not get married for 2 years because of the marriage penalty tax. They were in college at the time. They knew they wanted to get married, but they thought, they could not afford to do this because they would have to pay roughly, in their case, about $600 more a year in taxes if they got married. They were in college and they said: We can't afford it; $600 is important; we cannot afford to do this. So they didn't. But they were not happy they were forced by their Tax Code not to get married. You would think, actually, we would be giving them $600 to get married. This is a positive institution. It is something that is important for the country. It is a clear signal of support for family values, which we all say we are for. We ought to at least send that positive signal, but we don't. Those are four families, each of them who could use the average of $1,400 a year that most couples pay in a marriage penalty. Those are only four, though, in Kansas. I want to show with this chart, we actually have 259,000 couples who are paying this marriage penalty tax. What we are talking about eliminating is this portion of it, the marriage penalty that actually exists about 66 different places in the Tax Code. So we are going to have a lot of other places we need to ferret this out. At the end of the day, I hope we sunset this Tax Code, reform the whole thing, go to a flatter, simpler, fairer system. But that is for another time. I want to point out, for Members or others who are watching, how pervasive this marriage penalty tax is in their States. You can go down any of the States here: In Wyoming, where the Presiding Officer is from, 45,336 couples pay a marriage penalty, a tax on being married. That is in Wyoming. You can go anyplace. In Connecticut, 347,306 couples pay that; in Washington DC, 27,117. Go to the big population States, there are more there: New York, 1.5 million; California, 2.752 million couples paying a marriage penalty tax. It is all across the board, all across the country, that couples, for the privilege of being married, pay this tax. People know about it. Now we are seeing public opinion polls that show people know they are paying a tax for the privilege of being married. As my colleagues can see, this is not an issue that just affects a few people in a few States; it affects America's working families. It simply must be corrected this year. I say to my colleagues, do not hook any riders to this bill that will kill it and then say you are for eliminating the marriage penalty tax. If you hook riders to this bill that will kill it, you are against eliminating the marriage penalty tax. Further, I point out to people, the marriage penalty tax affects America's children. I have many letters from people which demonstrate that. In fact, Gary and Charla Gipson commented in a letter they wrote on this subject: If we are really interested in ``putting children first,'' then why would this country penalize the very situation (marriage) where kids do best? When parents are truly committed to each other, through their marriage vows, their children's outcomes are enhanced. I do not want to take the full length of time to talk about this bill today because we have talked about it enough in the past. But I do want to make sure people understand that this does affect two-wage earner couples making between $20,000 and $75,000 a year. Clearly, we need to make the elimination of the marriage penalty tax a priority to help all of these families, not just a few. The House bill does much of this. I think we can put forward an even better bill in the Senate that takes away more of the marriage penalty tax than even the House version does. America's families deserve this break. I would like to be able to tell my families back in Kansas that, yes, this Congress does stand for family values. One of the things we are doing to help support these families is eliminating the marriage penalty tax. It is a good and positive and right signal that we can send at a time we are having so much trouble with families. I just came from a Commerce Committee hearing where we were talking about and had testimony regarding the impact of interactive violent video games on children. There the concern was the increased level of overall violence in this society, and even the interactive nature of it in video games and its negative impact on children. Constantly, people in that hearing were saying: I hope parents know what video games their children are playing. We hope the parents are working with their children and communicating on this issue. In each case, they were talking about the role and the need and the importance of parents and their active participation. What better signal can we send than to say we believe that is true and we are not going to penalize you for being married parents. We are not going to penalize you for being in that situation. We are going to remove this marriage penalty tax and let you keep an average of $1,400 per year. We have a chance to pass this legislation. We have the time to do it. This is the appointed hour for us. I also want to send a signal to the President that I think we are going to get this bill through this Senate. We have gotten it through the House. I am calling on the President to sign this bill, sign the marriage penalty tax elimination bill, and not to obfuscate the issue or say that it is about something else or it is too expensive. If it is too expensive for Government, imagine how expensive it is for these 21 million American couples who are out there paying this extra tax. Is it really too expensive for us to invest a little bit of money in these working families to encourage them, to support them, to say they have the most important task in America; that is, raising our next generation? We should be saying to them: You deserve a break today. You deserve to be able to have this support coming to you from this Government instead of being taxed. You should be supported. If anything, we should subsidize the family situation rather than tax it. Mr. President, please sign this bill when it gets to you so we can do away with this onerous burden. There may be other colleagues who will come to the floor later to talk about this issue but at this time that is the extent of my comments on this particular topic. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? Are we in morning business?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, there is a lot of information swirling about concerning the Middle East Peace Process, specifically the so called ``Syrian track.'' Facts and figures are being bandied about freely and there is little to indicate which are fact and which are fiction. Therefore I rise today to lay down a marker for the coming year and to express the hope that the administration will consult with Congress on a continual basis as this process picks up again. Last year, Congress and the American people were presented with a bill for the Middle East peace process that was in excess of $1 billion--that is $1 billion more than the $5 billion plus we already spend in the Middle East. And this extra bill was compiled without any congressional input. It was approved, but this is no way to do business. The peace process is ongoing, but the President and the Department of State should consider themselves on notice from this moment on: This Congress will not rubber stamp another Wye Plantation Accord, we will not cough up another check without consultation and due consideration; we will not be left out of our Constitutionally assigned role. I am a strong believer in the Middle East peace process. The Governments of Egypt, Jordan and Israel have shown enormous character and courage in making peace, and they deserve our support. The nations of Egypt and Jordan, like Israel, need economic and military security in a bad neighborhood. They have made real sacrifices to do the right thing, and they have the backing of the United States. However, ultimately, peace is not something that can be bought. Both Israel and its Arab partners, be they the Palestinians, the Lebanese or the Syrians, must make peace on their own terms without regard to sweeteners or inducements from the United States. The US has always played a historical role in promoting peace, but ultimately, peace only works when it is in the interests of the parties directly involved. Should we help? I believe we can. Should that help be the sole basis of an agreement? Unreservedly, no. All of us who follow foreign policy issues are well aware that in this, the last year of the Clinton Administration, the President would like to preside over an historic peace between Israel and its remaining enemies in the Arab world. Perhaps we shouldn't blame President Clinton too much for yearning for a place in the history books. But President Clinton and his entire foreign policy team need to remember a few important points: 1: Congress has the power of the purse; 2: We are not the Syrian parliament: We will not rubber stamp any agreement with any price tag; 3: Notwithstanding rumors to the contrary, we are interested and wish to be kept apprised of important developments in American diplomacy. In other words, Mr. President, come and talk to us. Keep us in the loop. I have read in the newspapers that Israel is looking at the security implications of returning the Golan Heights and is also considering requesting a security package from the United States which will be very costly. There are ongoing discussions between Israel and the Defense Department on this matter. But Congress has not been briefed. Syria too, has visions of sugar plum fairies dancing into Damascus with billions in aid; and I am sure the Lebanese will not be too far behind. There will be many reasons to support a peace in the Middle East, but much will depend upon exactly what commitments will be expected of the United States. The President must not again make the mistake of signing IOUs which, this time, the Congress may have no intention of covering. We are willing partners in peace, but we will not accept the presentation of another fait accompli. Mr. President, we look forward to hearing from you--often.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, March 8, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in SH216.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 8, 2000, to conduct a markup on S. 2097, the Local TV Act; S. 1452, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act; and pending nominations.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday March 8, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing. The committee will examine energy supply and demand issues relating to crude oil, heating oil, and transportation fuels in light of the rise in price of these fuels.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 8, 2000, to hear testimony regarding Penalty and Interest Provisions in the Internal Revenue Code.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 8, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to hold two hearings.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March, 8, 2000, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session for the consideration of S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act, during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2000.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 8, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on draft legislation to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976. The hearing will be held in the Committee room, 485 Russell Senate Building.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 8, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing, followed by an executive session, on the nominations of: Danny Lee McDonald, of Oklahoma, to be a member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2005 (reappointment); and Bradley A. Smith, of Ohio, to be a member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2005, vice Lee Ann Elliott, resigned.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 8, 2000 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 8, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on Army transformation.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Communications Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 8, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. on Internet security.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue I have raised several times on the floor. I am hopeful that this year, this body, will get a chance to deal with the marriage penalty tax elimination. Mr. President, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Ashcroft, and I have been pushing for some period of time for the elimination of the marriage penalty tax; and it is truly that--a penalty tax on marriage. This body will have a chance to address this issue shortly. The Finance Committee of the Senate will consider this issue in the near future. They will be marking up the bill to eliminate one area of the Internal Revenue Code where the marriage penalty tax occurs. It will then come before this body, I am told, I believe the leader wants it scheduled before April 15. There will be Members who will try to block this bill, with issues that are extraneous to the marriage penalty. They will be able to add things to it, or filibuster the marriage penalty tax elimination. I hope they think about what they would be doing in stopping the elimination of the marriage penalty tax. Before they take actions to block this important issue, I hope they just pause and say maybe I will try to amend my issue onto another bill; this one is too important. I don't think we need to be blocking it. Just in looking at the marriage penalty tax, I hope people recognize the extent of its involvement and intrusion on married couples across the country. I have a chart up here to which I will refer a number of times. It shows the number of married couples affected by the marriage penalty tax across the United States. This is it. The chart represents married couples, and we don't know how many children are in these families who are also effected. We are talking about 25 million American families who are affected across the country by this penalty. In Kansas, we have 259,904 couples who are penalized by this marriage penalty tax. Again, for those who haven't been following the debate, all our proposal would do is level the playing field. It would say that if you are married, a two-wage-earner family, you will pay the same in taxes as if you were two independent people living together; we are not going to punish you, or fine you, or penalize you for being married. The average tax these 25 million American couples pay additionally for the privilege of being married is $1,480. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of money to a lot of people. I hope we cut the tax and send that back to the married couples across this country and say we are not going to penalize you anymore. That is what we are seeking for this body to pass. The House of Representatives has already done good work in this area. The House of Representatives has passed a bill to provide marriage tax penalty relief for America's families in the 15-percent marginal tax bracket and to eliminate the marriage penalty in the standard deduction. I think the House bill is a good starting point for our discussion of the marriage penalty reduction and elimination. Doubling the standard deduction, increasing the width of the 15-percent bracket, and fixing the earned-income tax credit where the marriage penalty exists will eliminate or reduce the marriage penalty for all families. It still doesn't get rid of it. The Marriage Penalty appears in over 60 different places in the Tax Code. Down the road I hope we can get to a discussion of sunsetting the entire Tax Code and going to a flatter, fairer, and simpler system. I know the Presiding Officer has led the charge on doing precisely that. It is clearly something we need to do for the country, for the economy, and for the people, so many of whom, labor under this Tax Code in fear they are going to be found to have done something wrong when they are trying to be good, law-abiding citizens. But that is a debate for another day. Right now we are trying to get at one issue. The National Center for Policy Analysis says the highest proportion of marriage penalties occurred when the higher-earning spouse made between $20,000 and $75,000. Clearly, we need to make marriage penalty elimination a priority for all families, not only a few. Consider that--making between $20,000 and $75,000. You are looking at a two-wage-earner family, probably with a child, or two or three children, who can't afford to be penalized by this $1,480. They are currently being penalized under the Tax Code. We see the numbers up here. We know the full extent of this. I want to read--because I think these are so touching and important-- statements of people who are impacted by this. We continue to collect these statements and letters from people because now people are calculating their marriage penalty tax. I hope in the next week or so to have a chart saying: OK. As you are watching this on TV, figure your marriage penalty. Have this as one spouse's income; there is another spouse's income; and here is where it meets. That is your marriage penalty, the tax you pay. The average is $1,480. Some pay more, some less; letting people know this is what they are penalized and this is the tax they are paying. Listen to some of the stories from people around the country. This is Christopher from Fairfield, OH. This family said: One of the biggest shocks my wife and I had when deciding to get married was how much more we would have to give to the government because we decided to be married rather than live together. It does not make sense that I was allowed to keep a larger portion of my pay on a Friday and less of it on a Monday with the only difference being that I was married that weekend. That is to the point. This is from Andrew and Connie from Alexandria, VA. We grew up together and began dating when we were 18. After dating for three years we decided that the next natural step in our lives together would be to get married. I cannot tell you the joy this has brought us. I must tell you that the tax penalty that was inflicted on us has been the only real source of pain that our marriage has suffered. I wish all marriages could be like that--that the only source of pain is the Tax Code. Is that a pain we should inflict on them? Is that something we should do to this married couple? They say: We are getting along pretty good. The only real pain is the Federal Tax Code and the tax penalty we are paying. I don't think that is a good signal to send. This is Andrew from Greenville, NC, who writes: It is unfortunate that the government makes a policy against the noble and sacred institution of marriage. I also feel it is unfortunate that it seems to hit young struggling couples the hardest. That is probably the biggest point. If you have a combined income with the top wage earner making between $20,000 and $75,000--these are young married couples; they are struggling with a lot of issues, struggling with financial issues--and you lob on top of that a tax penalty, that really hits them, and particularly a lot of couples during the early years with young children. This is Thomas from Hilliard, OH, who says: No person who legitimately supports family values could be against this bill. The marriage penalty is but another example of how in the past 40 years the federal government has enacted policies that have broken down the fundamental institutions that were the strength of this country from the start. This is Sean from Jefferson City, MO: I think the marriage penalty is a major cause of the breakdown of the family here in the U.S. . . . [Ending it] would do a lot to cut down on the incidence of cohabitation by unmarried couples and give more children two-parent families where there is a real commitment between the parents. I don't know if I would go as far as what he said--that this has been the major cause of the breakdown of the family in the United States. I don't think that is the case. But it is the wrong signal for us to send. We send signals all the time across the country of what we think is good and what we think is wrong. Welfare reform: When we went through that fight--it was a very important fight--we decreased the welfare rolls in the country by 50 percent. We sent a signal that we think it is good to work. That is a good signal. We should eliminate the marriage penalty tax. That is a statement about what we think is good. People are married and they shouldn't be taxed and penalized for that. According to a recent Rutgers University study, the institution of marriage is already having problems in the United States and is in a state of decline. From 1960 to 1996, the annual number of marriages per thousand adult women declined by almost 43 percent. That impacts and hurts a lot of children. Not that single parents don't struggle heroically to raise children; they do many times very successfully. But that family can have a bonded relationship. Studies are showing again and again that the most important place we can put that child is in a loving relationship between two married people. I am going to continue to come down to the floor regularly raising this issue because this body will have a chance to vote on this issue in dealing with the marriage penalty tax. I believe there are Members on both sides of the aisle of goodwill who want to see this marriage penalty tax eliminated. I don't think the penalty makes much sense to many Americans at all. I hope as we start to engage this debate, in this body, that Members on both sides of the aisle will stand up and say: Yes, this is an important issue. We are not going to load it down with a lot of amendments. We are not going to load it down with a lot of extraneous issues. It passed the House. If it passes this body, we can get it to the President for his signature. It is an important signal to send across the country, and we are not going to block it. There are a lot of ways in this body that you can block something-- that you can put it forward and say you are for it but you are blocking it. I hope this would be one that we could say we are going to pass for the 25 million American married couples. For those in South Dakota, 75,114 are penalized, and for those in Nevada 146,142 are penalized--I see my colleagues from South Dakota and Nevada--I hope they can say to them: We shouldn't be penalizing you. We have the wherewithal to change this, and let's change it. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I hope we will have a vote on a true marriage penalty tax bill before April 15 comes and goes. There will be other of my colleagues on the floor later on to address this issue as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 15 minutes.